← All Phrases

“Section 36(1)”

Section References (mined)Section 36Section 36(1)3,872 judgments

The decision most relied on for Section 36(1) is CIT v. Reliance Utilities & Power Ltd. (313 ITR 340), cited in 2,118 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on Section 36(1)

CIT v. Reliance Utilities & Power Ltd.
313 ITR 340 · 2009 · High Court
2,118
citing judgments

Where an assessee claims that investments were made out of own funds, interest disallowance under Section 14A read with Rule 8D may not apply if the assessee demonstrates the availability of sufficient interest-free funds to cover such investments.

CIT v. AIMIL Ltd.
321 ITR 508 · 2010 · High Court
1,629
citing judgments

Employee contributions to PF and ESIC, deposited beyond the due date under the respective Acts but within the due date for filing the income tax return under Section 139(1), are allowable deductions under Section 36(1)(va). Such disallowance cannot be made during processing under Section 143(1).

S.A. Builders Ltd. v. CIT
288 ITR 1 · 2007 · Supreme Court
1,484
citing judgments

Interest paid on borrowed funds cannot be disallowed merely because the assessee made interest-free advances, provided those advances were made for business purposes and commercial expediency. The Revenue cannot dictate a businessman's commercial decisions, but the assessee bears the onus to prove the business expediency.

Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT
143 Taxmann.com 178 · 2022 · Supreme Court
1,392
citing judgments

Employee contributions to provident fund and ESI deposited by an employer beyond the due dates prescribed under the respective special Acts are not allowable as a deduction under section 36(1)(va) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Such disallowance can be made during processing under section 143(1).

CIT v. Alom Extrusions Ltd.
319 ITR 306 · 2009 · Supreme Court
1,344
citing judgments

A proviso inserted into a section to remedy unintended consequences, make the section workable, or supply an obvious omission must be read retrospectively in operation to give effect to the section as a whole.

CIT v. HDFC Bank Ltd.
366 ITR 505 · 2014 · High Court
1,261
citing judgments

When an assessee possesses interest-free funds sufficient to cover investments yielding tax-free income, it is presumed that such investments were made from these interest-free funds, precluding disallowance of interest expenditure under Section 14A.

CIT v. Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation
366 ITR 170 · 2014 · High Court
1,158
citing judgments

Employees' contributions to welfare funds, such as provident fund, are not allowable as a deduction under section 36(1)(va) if deposited beyond the due date prescribed under the respective welfare statutes, even by a single day. Such delayed deposits are not cured even if made before the income-tax return filing due date.

TRF Ltd. v. CIT
323 ITR 397 · 2010 · Supreme Court
714
citing judgments

For claiming deduction for bad debts under section 36(1)(vii) of the Income Tax Act, it is sufficient for the assessee to write off the debt as irrecoverable in its accounts, and it is not necessary to prove that the debt has actually become irrecoverable.

Judgments citing Section 36(1)

DCIT Circle- 1, Ltu, New Delhi vs. Mawana Sugar Ltd., New Delhi

Appeal is partly allowed as above and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed as above

ITA 5984/DEL/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Apr 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

Section 115JSection 14ASection 36(1)(iii)

grounds of appeal; the assessee has challenged following three disallowances upheld by the Ld. CIT(A): i. Rs.1,70,11,500/- made under section 36(1)(iii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter, the ‘Act’), ii. Rs.4,42,817/- under section 14A of the Act and iii. Rs.2 ... para 9 of the impugned order). 5. The first issue is in respect of the disallowance of Rs.1,70,11,500/- made under section 36(1)(iii) of the Act by the AO and upheld by the Ld. CIT(A). 5.1 The Ld. AR submitted that there was no factual

J M D Services Private Limited, Patna vs. Joint Commissioner, Pune

ITA 423/PAT/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Patna29 Apr 2025AY 2021-22
Section 250

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “PATNA BENCH”, PATNA (VIRTUAL HEARING AT KOLKATA) SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY, VICE PRESIDENT SHRI

Rajesh Sinha, Jaipur vs. Ld. Income Tax Officer, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal is hereby dismissed

ITA 154/JPR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur29 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Ms. Divya Phophalia, C.A. (through V.C.)For Respondent: Mrs. Swapnil Parihar, JCIT-DR
Section 154Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

reason being that the same were not paid on the due date. The contention Ld. AR for the appellant is that explanation to section 36(1)(va) and Section 43B of the Act came to be inserted by Finance Act, 2021, w.e.f. 01.04.2021, and as such, Learned CIT(A) fell

DCIT, CC-2(1), Bangalore vs. Adarsh Developers, Bengaluru

In the result appeal of the learned assessing officer is dismissed on its merit and appeal of the assessee is also dismissed as withdrawn

ITA 1160/BANG/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Apr 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri Hemant Pai, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 28Section 36Section 37

assessing officer dated 20 July 2022. Therefore, the claim of the assessee can also fall as eligible for deduction under the provisions of section 36 (1) (vii) of the act as ‘part of that debt’ that has already been offered by the assessee as income from subsidiary. This satisfies ... part thereof has been taken into account for computing the profits for earlier Assessment Year, it would satisfy a claim to deduction under Section 36(1)(vii) read with Section 36(2)(i) of the Act. In fact, the Revenue also does not dispute the above provisions as no submission

Adarsh Developers, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle - 2(1), Bengaluru

In the result appeal of the learned assessing officer is dismissed on its merit and appeal of the assessee is also dismissed as withdrawn

ITA 1082/BANG/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Apr 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri Hemant Pai, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 28Section 36Section 37

assessing officer dated 20 July 2022. Therefore, the claim of the assessee can also fall as eligible for deduction under the provisions of section 36 (1) (vii) of the act as ‘part of that debt’ that has already been offered by the assessee as income from subsidiary. This satisfies ... part thereof has been taken into account for computing the profits for earlier Assessment Year, it would satisfy a claim to deduction under Section 36(1)(vii) read with Section 36(2)(i) of the Act. In fact, the Revenue also does not dispute the above provisions as no submission

Bank of Baroda (Erstwhile Dena Bank ), Mumbai vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Incometax Circle -2(1)(1), Mumbai

ITA 1654/MUM/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Apr 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, V.P. & Ms. Padmavathy S., Am

For Respondent: Shri Rakesh Ranjan, CIT (DR)
Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)

noticed that the assessee had claimed deduction of Rs.4620,87,19,739/- on account of bad debts written off in terms of Section 36(1)(viia) of the Act. On verification of details of the claim, the AO observed that against the provision made for doubtful debts u/s. 36(1

Income Tax Officer-Ward-6(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Kohinoor Planet Constructions Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1495/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm & Smt. Renu Jauhri, Am & Kohinoor Planet Constructions Pvt. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Ltd. Tax, Circle 6(3)(1) 506, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Kohinoor Corporate Office, Senapati Vs. Bapat Marg, Dadar West, Mumbai – Maharishi Karve Road, Mumbai – 400028. 400020. Pan/Gir No. Aabcr6994E (Assessee) : (Respondent) & Income Tax Officer, Ward-6(3)(1) Kohinoor Planet Constructions Room No. 524, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Pvt. Ltd. Bhavan, M. K. Road, Mumbai – 3, Kohinoor Corporate Office, Vs. 400020. Senapati Bapat Marg, Dadar West, Mumbai – 400028. Pan/Gir No. Aabcr6994E (Assessee) : (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri. Jayesh Dadia : Shri. Biswanath Das – Cit Dr. Respondent By : 30.01.2025 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement : 29.04.2025 O R D E R Per Bench: These Are Cross Appeals Filed By The Assessee & Revenue, Challenging The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Delhi (‘Ld. Cit(A)’ For Short)

For Appellant: Shri. Jayesh DadiaFor Respondent: 30.01.2025
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 36(2)Section 37Section 43CSection 68

circumstances of the case and law, the Ld.CIT(A) erred in deleting the disallowance of Rs. 2,87,27,734/-under Section 36(1) (lii) made by the AO, merely on a presumption that the interest-free advances were out of Assessee's own interest-free funds ... also relied on the decision of the Tribunal in assessee’s own case for earlier years where on identical issue on disallowance of Section 36(1)(iii) of the Act was set aside. The ld. AR for the assessee relied on the decision of the Tribunal in assessee

Income Tax Officer Ward-6(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Kohinoor Planet Constructions Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1493/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Apr 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm & Smt. Renu Jauhri, Am & Kohinoor Planet Constructions Pvt. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Ltd. Tax, Circle 6(3)(1) 506, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Kohinoor Corporate Office, Senapati Vs. Bapat Marg, Dadar West, Mumbai – Maharishi Karve Road, Mumbai – 400028. 400020. Pan/Gir No. Aabcr6994E (Assessee) : (Respondent) & Income Tax Officer, Ward-6(3)(1) Kohinoor Planet Constructions Room No. 524, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Pvt. Ltd. Bhavan, M. K. Road, Mumbai – 3, Kohinoor Corporate Office, Vs. 400020. Senapati Bapat Marg, Dadar West, Mumbai – 400028. Pan/Gir No. Aabcr6994E (Assessee) : (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri. Jayesh Dadia : Shri. Biswanath Das – Cit Dr. Respondent By : 30.01.2025 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement : 29.04.2025 O R D E R Per Bench: These Are Cross Appeals Filed By The Assessee & Revenue, Challenging The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Delhi (‘Ld. Cit(A)’ For Short)

For Appellant: Shri. Jayesh DadiaFor Respondent: 30.01.2025
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 36(2)Section 37Section 43CSection 68

circumstances of the case and law, the Ld.CIT(A) erred in deleting the disallowance of Rs. 2,87,27,734/-under Section 36(1) (lii) made by the AO, merely on a presumption that the interest-free advances were out of Assessee's own interest-free funds ... also relied on the decision of the Tribunal in assessee’s own case for earlier years where on identical issue on disallowance of Section 36(1)(iii) of the Act was set aside. The ld. AR for the assessee relied on the decision of the Tribunal in assessee

Kohinoor Planet Constructions Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 6(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1159/MUM/2024[AY 2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Apr 2025

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm & Smt. Renu Jauhri, Am & Kohinoor Planet Constructions Pvt. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Ltd. Tax, Circle 6(3)(1) 506, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Kohinoor Corporate Office, Senapati Vs. Bapat Marg, Dadar West, Mumbai – Maharishi Karve Road, Mumbai – 400028. 400020. Pan/Gir No. Aabcr6994E (Assessee) : (Respondent) & Income Tax Officer, Ward-6(3)(1) Kohinoor Planet Constructions Room No. 524, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Pvt. Ltd. Bhavan, M. K. Road, Mumbai – 3, Kohinoor Corporate Office, Vs. 400020. Senapati Bapat Marg, Dadar West, Mumbai – 400028. Pan/Gir No. Aabcr6994E (Assessee) : (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri. Jayesh Dadia : Shri. Biswanath Das – Cit Dr. Respondent By : 30.01.2025 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement : 29.04.2025 O R D E R Per Bench: These Are Cross Appeals Filed By The Assessee & Revenue, Challenging The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Delhi (‘Ld. Cit(A)’ For Short)

For Appellant: Shri. Jayesh DadiaFor Respondent: 30.01.2025
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 36(2)Section 37Section 43CSection 68

circumstances of the case and law, the Ld.CIT(A) erred in deleting the disallowance of Rs. 2,87,27,734/-under Section 36(1) (lii) made by the AO, merely on a presumption that the interest-free advances were out of Assessee's own interest-free funds ... also relied on the decision of the Tribunal in assessee’s own case for earlier years where on identical issue on disallowance of Section 36(1)(iii) of the Act was set aside. The ld. AR for the assessee relied on the decision of the Tribunal in assessee

Kohinoor Planet Constructions Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 6(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1158/MUM/2024[AY 2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Apr 2025

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm & Smt. Renu Jauhri, Am & Kohinoor Planet Constructions Pvt. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Ltd. Tax, Circle 6(3)(1) 506, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Kohinoor Corporate Office, Senapati Vs. Bapat Marg, Dadar West, Mumbai – Maharishi Karve Road, Mumbai – 400028. 400020. Pan/Gir No. Aabcr6994E (Assessee) : (Respondent) & Income Tax Officer, Ward-6(3)(1) Kohinoor Planet Constructions Room No. 524, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Pvt. Ltd. Bhavan, M. K. Road, Mumbai – 3, Kohinoor Corporate Office, Vs. 400020. Senapati Bapat Marg, Dadar West, Mumbai – 400028. Pan/Gir No. Aabcr6994E (Assessee) : (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri. Jayesh Dadia : Shri. Biswanath Das – Cit Dr. Respondent By : 30.01.2025 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement : 29.04.2025 O R D E R Per Bench: These Are Cross Appeals Filed By The Assessee & Revenue, Challenging The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Delhi (‘Ld. Cit(A)’ For Short)

For Appellant: Shri. Jayesh DadiaFor Respondent: 30.01.2025
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 36(2)Section 37Section 43CSection 68

circumstances of the case and law, the Ld.CIT(A) erred in deleting the disallowance of Rs. 2,87,27,734/-under Section 36(1) (lii) made by the AO, merely on a presumption that the interest-free advances were out of Assessee's own interest-free funds ... also relied on the decision of the Tribunal in assessee’s own case for earlier years where on identical issue on disallowance of Section 36(1)(iii) of the Act was set aside. The ld. AR for the assessee relied on the decision of the Tribunal in assessee

Pradeep Wig, New Delhi vs. ACIT Central Circle-5, New Delhi

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 406/DEL/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Apr 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Anubhav Sharma

business prudence and deduction claimed by assessee on account of interest paid to bank and also to its creditors was not allowable under section 36(1)(iii). The operative part of the judgment is reproduced below: “6. ……The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has upheld the aforesaid finding

Sumita Singhal, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-17(4), New Delhi

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed as above

ITA 577/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Apr 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

Section 194Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 40

confirming disallowance of INR 62,04,444 made by the assessing officer under section 2(24)(x) read with section 36(1)(va) of the Act. 4.1 That the CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in holding the due date for deposit of employee's contribution to provident ... respective Act. 4.2. That the CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in holding that amendment made vide Finance Act. 2021 under section 36(1)(va) of the Act and section 43B of the Act is retrospective in nature. 5. That the CIT(A) erred on facts

Shyam Realties, Ahmedabad vs. The Dy. CIT, Cirlce-2(2)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1388/AHD/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 Apr 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita Nos.1387/Ahd/2024 & 1388/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2017-18 & 2018-19 Shyam Realities The Dy.Cit, बनाम/ Tejendra Arcade Circle-2(2)(1) V/S. Ganji Farak Mill Compound Ahmedabad – 380 015 Rakhiyal Cross Road Rakhiyal, Ahmedabad – 380 021 (Gujarat) "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Abvfs 2603 M (अपीलाथ&/ Appellant) ('( यथ&/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Bandish Soparkar, Ar Revenue By : Shri Atul Pandey, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 23/04/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 28/04/2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am: These Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee For Assessment Years (Ays) 2017–18 & 2018–19 Are Directed Against The Respective Appellate Orders Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), New Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As “Cit(A)”], Dated 27.06.2024. In The Impugned Orders, The Ld. Cit(A) Confirmed The Disallowance Of Interest On Unsecured Loans To The Extent Of Rs.36,69,000/- For A.Y. 2017–18 & Rs.38,94,295/- For A.Y. 2018–19, As Originally Disallowed By

For Appellant: Shri Bandish Soparkar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Atul Pandey, Sr.DR
Section 269SSection 68

establishing the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the persons from whom unsecured loans were allegedly obtained. It was also contended that interest under section 36(1)(iii) of the Act, especially when the principal transaction itself is not proved to be genuine, cannot be allowed as expenditure. Reliance was placed ... Assessing Officer or, though not added under section 68 due to their nature as opening balances, were nevertheless disallowed for interest deductibility under section 36(1)(iii) of the Act. While the Ld. CIT(A) ITA Nos.1387 & 1388/Ahd/2024 Shyam Realties vs. Dy.CIT, Cir.2(2)(1) Asst. Years

Shyam Realties, Ahmedabad vs. The Dy. CIT, Cirlce-2(2)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1387/AHD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita Nos.1387/Ahd/2024 & 1388/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2017-18 & 2018-19 Shyam Realities The Dy.Cit, बनाम/ Tejendra Arcade Circle-2(2)(1) V/S. Ganji Farak Mill Compound Ahmedabad – 380 015 Rakhiyal Cross Road Rakhiyal, Ahmedabad – 380 021 (Gujarat) "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Abvfs 2603 M (अपीलाथ&/ Appellant) ('( यथ&/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Bandish Soparkar, Ar Revenue By : Shri Atul Pandey, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 23/04/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 28/04/2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am: These Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee For Assessment Years (Ays) 2017–18 & 2018–19 Are Directed Against The Respective Appellate Orders Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), New Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As “Cit(A)”], Dated 27.06.2024. In The Impugned Orders, The Ld. Cit(A) Confirmed The Disallowance Of Interest On Unsecured Loans To The Extent Of Rs.36,69,000/- For A.Y. 2017–18 & Rs.38,94,295/- For A.Y. 2018–19, As Originally Disallowed By

For Appellant: Shri Bandish Soparkar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Atul Pandey, Sr.DR
Section 269SSection 68

establishing the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the persons from whom unsecured loans were allegedly obtained. It was also contended that interest under section 36(1)(iii) of the Act, especially when the principal transaction itself is not proved to be genuine, cannot be allowed as expenditure. Reliance was placed ... Assessing Officer or, though not added under section 68 due to their nature as opening balances, were nevertheless disallowed for interest deductibility under section 36(1)(iii) of the Act. While the Ld. CIT(A) ITA Nos.1387 & 1388/Ahd/2024 Shyam Realties vs. Dy.CIT, Cir.2(2)(1) Asst. Years

Excellence Finance Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Central Circle 6(4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed

ITA 293/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Apr 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankarassessment Year: 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri Snehal Shah, Ld. A.RFor Respondent: Shri Hemanshu Joshi, Ld. D.R
Section 143(1)Section 250Section 36(2)

have heard the parties and perused the material available on record. For better understanding, let us peruse the relevant provisions of section 36(1) & 36(2) of the Act, as applicable to the instant case. 6 M/s. Excellence Finance Pvt. Ltd. “Section 36(1) 36. (1) The deductions provided ... under: “4. In view of the above, claim for any debt or part thereof in any previous year, shall be admissible under section 36(1)(vii) of the Act, if it is written off as irrecoverable in the books of accounts of the assessee for that previous year

Hnj Stock Broking Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Central Circle 6(4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed

ITA 292/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Apr 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankarassessment Year: 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri Snehal Shah, Ld. A.RFor Respondent: Shri Hemanshu Joshi, Ld. D.R
Section 250Section 36(2)

perused the material available on record. For better understanding, let us peruse the relevant 6 M/s. HNJ Stock Broking Pvt. Ltd. provisions of section 36(1) & 36(2) of the Act, as applicable to the instant case. “Section 36(1) 36. (1) The deductions provided for in the following clauses ... under: “4. In view of the above, claim for any debt or part thereof in any previous year, shall be admissible under section 36(1)(vii) of the Act, if it is written off as irrecoverable in the books of accounts of the Assessee for that previous year

Ethos Limited, Chandigarh vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 1(1), Chandigarh

In the result, the appeal of the assessee I

ITA 873/CHANDI/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh25 Apr 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Sh. Rajpal Yadav, Hon’Ble Vice- & Sh. Krinwant Sahay, Hon’Ble(Physical Hearing) I.T.A. No.873/Chandi/2024 Assessment Year: 2021-22

Section 143(1)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)Section 41

Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] has erred in upholding the addition of 218,73,058/ made by the Assessing Officer under Section 36(1)(va) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, on account of the delayed deposit of employees' contributions to Provident Fund (PF) and Employees' State Insurance ... timelines provided by the Employees' Provident Fund Organisation (EPFO) should not be disallowed, the addition I.T.A. No.873/Chandi/2024 3 Assessment Year: 2021-22 under Section 36(1)(va) is unwarranted and inequitable, and should therefore be set aside. 4. That on facts, circumstances and legal position of the case, the Learned

Emson Gears Ltd., Ludhiana vs. DCIT, Circle 1, Ludhiana

In the result, the appeal stand dismissed

ITA 709/CHANDI/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh25 Apr 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Laliet Kumar, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No. 709/Chandi/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2019-20) M/S Emson Gears Ltd. Dcit, Circle I, बनाम/ Vs. D-42, Phase V, Focal Point, Ludhiana. Dhandari Kalan, Punjab. 141010 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaace-3697-E (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Sh. Sarabjit Garg (Ca) – Ld. Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Sh. Vivek Vardhan (Addl. Cit) – Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 22-04-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 25-04-2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aforesaid Appeal By Assessee For Assessment Year (Ay) 2019-20 Arises Out Of An Order Of Learned Addl. / Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax-2, Mumbai [Cit(A)] Dated 27-09-2023 In The Matter Of An Intimation Issued By Cpc U/S 143(1) On 03-06-2020 Disallowing Late Payment Of Employees’ Contribution To Pf / Esi In Terms Of Sec.43B R.W.S. 36(1)(Va) As Well As Sec.2(24)(X). The Ld. Cit(A) Confirmed The Same, Inter-Alia, By Relying Upon The Decision Of Hon’Ble Apex Court In The Case Of Checkmate Services P. Ltd Vs. Cit (2022) 143

For Appellant: Sh. Sarabjit Garg (CA) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Sh. Vivek Vardhan (Addl. CIT) – Ld. Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(iv)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

Court that there is clear distinction between employer’s contribution which is its primary liability under law [in terms of Section 36(1)(iv)] and its liability to deposit amounts received by it or deducted by it from its employees’ [in terms of Sec. 36(1)(va)]. The former forms ... character as an income (albeit deemed), by virtue of Section 2(24)(x) and therefore, subjected to conditions spelt out by Explanation to Section 36(1)(va) i.e., depositing such amount received or deducted from the employee on or before the due date. In other words, there is a marked

N.K. Industries Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Dy.CIT, Circle-3(1)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee on this ground is allowed

ITA 448/AHD/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad25 Apr 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumarms. Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: NK Industries Ltd (Cross Appeals)
Section 250

computing the income under the head "profits and gains of business or profession", as per the provisions of the Act. 42. But, Section 36(1)(iii) makes a distinction. The amount of interest paid in respect of capital borrowed for the purpose of business or profession is allowed as deduction ... under Section 36(1)(iii), in computing the income referred to in Section 28. But, the proviso thereunder states that any amount of interest paid in respect of capital borrowed for acquisition of an asset for extension of existing business or profession, whether capitalised in the books of account

N.K. Industries Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Dy.CIT, Circle-3(1)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee on this ground is allowed

ITA 447/AHD/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad25 Apr 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumarms. Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: NK Industries Ltd (Cross Appeals)
Section 250

computing the income under the head "profits and gains of business or profession", as per the provisions of the Act. 42. But, Section 36(1)(iii) makes a distinction. The amount of interest paid in respect of capital borrowed for the purpose of business or profession is allowed as deduction ... under Section 36(1)(iii), in computing the income referred to in Section 28. But, the proviso thereunder states that any amount of interest paid in respect of capital borrowed for acquisition of an asset for extension of existing business or profession, whether capitalised in the books of account